Re: PIE 'inflected' Compounds

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

>
>
> > ===================
> >
> > It's not that much obvious that H is H2.
> > I don't believe Anatolian h is a proof
> > H1 also leaves traces.
> >
> > Now Uralic words/roots like
> > Finnish pel and puol- "fear/afraid"
> > and Hungarian fél (long e:) are
> > Coherent with a proto-form
> > like *puH1-t? and *poH1-t?-
> > Starting with a velar voiced H2.8,
> > the result should be Finnish
> > **pajl or **pojl
>
> Bomhard links this PU root (*peli in Sammallahti's reconstruction)
> with PIE *pel (to tremble, shake, be afraid, fearful, be frightened).
> I don't see any evidence for a laryngeal in either PIE or PU. My
> Proto-Indo-Uralic reconstruction would be *peli.
>
> ==============
>
> Dear Ray,
>
> *peli is complete junk
> for two obvious reasons :
>
> 1. Hungarian has a long e: in fél
> Obviously there is a laryngeal.
> as obvious as Greek the:lus
> is not dhel but dheH1-l.
> Evidence is clear : long is not short.

A long vowel is not supported by Finnsh, Estonian, Mansi, or Kamass.
Hungarian does have vowel quantity ablaut. For example, nom. fél,
acc. felet, half. Nom. lé, acc levet, soup

> 2. Hungarian f is from *p
> when the vowel was back.
> The initial vowel was not *e
> It must be either *o or *u

There are numerous other words that obviously go back to a front vowel
yet have Hungarian f. Also there are examples that go back to a back
vowel in which Hungarian has p.

> So a much better reconstruction
> is *puh-li
> Where the scheme u_i
> cause ablaut e_i.
> *o_i would be ä_i in Finnish
> and ö_i in Hungarian.

Ablaut in Hungarian?

Anyway, every reconstruction I have seen is either *pele or *peli.
These sound laws that you propose seem to have escaped everyone else's
notice.